W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2010

Re: [css-ruby] 'right' vs 'bopomofo' value name

From: KangHao Lu (Kenny) <kennyluck@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 05:52:20 +0900
Cc: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, Yasuo Kida <kida@mac.com>
Message-Id: <E454CF6D-6AF6-4D6C-B493-AB424D771079@w3.org>
To: WWW Style <www-style@w3.org>

>> Next, the value should cause not only the vertical arrangement
>> to kick in (unlike 'inline'), but also the special treatment
>> for placement of tone marks, which only occurs, as far as I'm
>> aware, when bopomofo is used as ruby to the right of base text
>> (ie. it *doesn't* occur when bopomofo is used with
>> ruby-position: before).

Hmm... actually an old document shows that "02D9 DOT ABOVE" should be  
displaced as well. [1] But nobody knows this. Personally I would like  
to completely ignore use cases of bopomofo on top of ideographs but  
"freedom" seems to have different opinion. [2]

>> This value needs to be a clue to the
>> user agent that this special treatment should be applied.
>
> Does the special arrangement apply when bopomofo is used in
> vertical writing mode but not as ruby?

I would assume the answer to this question is "yes but not always",  
but this case itself happens uncommonly. Kida-san has a picture about  
that. [3]

I agree that "tone mark movement" should not be part of ruby-position:  
right/bopomofo.

I keep thinking that this should be better handled as a font variant/ 
feature or some sort. Any idea?

>
>> Also, I'm not convinced that vertical alignment of ruby to the
>> right of a single character is such a widespread use case (or
>> if it even exists outside the bopomofo case) that it's necessary
>> to choose a universally applicable name for the value.
>>
>> I therefore think it is clearer for users if we use a script
>> specific label for this very specific feature, much as we do
>> in text-justify: kashida or text-justify: inter-ideograph, etc.
>
> The script-specific labels in text-justify are script-specific
> because the behavior is script-specific. In this case, the
> behavior does not need to be script-specific.

Murakami-san has an example of Japanese Hirakana using bopomofo ruby,  
but that's a very rare case.

Summary: I am a bit neutral about the name of the value.

[1] links in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-cjk/2010JulSep/0031
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Oct/0721
[3] http://www.flickr.com/photos/67381643@N00/5069541651/


Cheers,
Kenny
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 20:52:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:34 GMT